People v. Frierson CA2/4

Filed 10/7/25 P. v. Frierson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B339786

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA043389 v.

JAMES BELTON FRIERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Affirmed. Heather J. Manolakas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant James Belton Frierson contends the trial court erroneously denied his petition for a resentencing hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1 (section 1172.1). We reject Frierson’s arguments and affirm the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND

In 2001, a jury convicted Frierson of two counts of stalking and two counts of misdemeanor disobeying a court order. Under the Three Strikes law, the trial court sentenced Frierson to consecutive sentences of 25 years to life in state prison on the two stalking counts. On appeal, a different panel of this court modified the judgment by staying sentencing on one of those counts under section 654. (People v. Frierson (Jul. 2, 2002, B149977) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) alerted the trial court that it had incorrectly awarded Frierson 251 days of custody credit and 124 days of conduct credit because, at the time he was sentenced, he was serving a term in state prison and was thus ineligible for custody credits. In its letter to the trial court, the CDCR stated: “When notified by the [CDCR] that an illegal sentence exists, the trial court is entitled to reconsider all sentencing choices[.]” Frierson filed a motion requesting a full resentencing. Along with his motion, Frierson included exhibits documenting his efforts to participate in rehabilitation programs in prison, as well as letters of support from various members of his community outside prison. At a 2022 hearing, the trial court struck the unauthorized custody credits and denied Frierson’s motion for resentencing. In denying Frierson’s motion for resentencing, the court concluded the CDCR was only requesting correction of the credit award, the court did not have jurisdiction to resentence